Anyone else feel betrayed by Wyc Grousbeck?

[Chris]

A couple weeks ago, there was an article on this site, talking about how Wyc wouldn't mind sacrificing an entire NBA season (among other owners) to get his point across.

I can't get past this first sentence.  I can't see how anyone thinks this is about getting "his point across".  This is not some game, where they are just trying to teach each other a lesson.  This is business, and Wyc, along with all of the other owners, are incredibly successful businessmen. 

They all understand that in business you have to make important decisions, and sometimes, when your business is not doing great (and by all accounts, there are way too many teams barely breaking even or losing money), it is better to take a step back to fix the problem, than just play it out in a system that isn't conducive to consistently making money.

Now, I can understand why people don't like this, but this is by no means some whim of the owners to stick it to the players.  This is a calculated business decision, being made by some of the most successfuly businessmen in the world, in the hopes of improving their business in the longterm. 

[jdz101]

I don't see the armchair critics of owners going out, buying a team of any kind, and running it how they think it should be run. So honestly, with no real access to the inner sanctum of these ballclubs, how can any of us be critical of how they're run?

[Smitty77]

Roy,

Could you provide the link for all the NBA teams regarding profit and loss?

Thanks much,

Smitty77

[Roy H.]

Roy,

Could you provide the link for all the NBA teams regarding profit and loss?

Thanks much,

Smitty77

Here's what Forbes says:

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/32/basketball-valuations-11_land.html

Click on the "operating income" tab to sort the teams in order from high to low.

[Cman]

Nope.
He's been a great owner, especially in contrast to the previous owners (Gaston family from NYC).

[gpap]

A couple weeks ago, there was an article on this site, talking about how Wyc wouldn't mind sacrificing an entire NBA season (among other owners) to get his point across.

I can't get past this first sentence.  I can't see how anyone thinks this is about getting "his point across".  This is not some game, where they are just trying to teach each other a lesson.  This is business, and Wyc, along with all of the other owners, are incredibly successful businessmen. 

They all understand that in business you have to make important decisions, and sometimes, when your business is not doing great (and by all accounts, there are way too many teams barely breaking even or losing money), it is better to take a step back to fix the problem, than just play it out in a system that isn't conducive to consistently making money.

Now, I can understand why people don't like this, but this is by no means some whim of the owners to stick it to the players.  This is a calculated business decision, being made by some of the most successfuly businessmen in the world, in the hopes of improving their business in the longterm. 

And you said it yourself. The word "long term."

But here's the issue with the "long term."

Fans don't always think long term. Let's say the entire season gets locked out. Or let's say the season starts late (January or February.)

By then, who is to say that fans will come back. They'll just jump on someone else's bandwagon.

How does it benefit me as a consumer to return to watching a product after that product has jaded me by shutting me out from watching games?

Sorry but the idea of possibly waiting until January or November 2012 to return to watching basketball just doesn't sit right.

Maybe a lockout helps the owners, but how does it benefit me as a fan?

[Roy H.]

Fans don't always think long term. Let's say the entire season gets locked out. Or let's say the season starts late (January or February.)

By then, who is to say that fans will come back. They'll just jump on someone else's bandwagon.

The league will lose some fans to the lockout...  initially.  Then, they'll come back.

Baseball lost a World Series.  The fans came back.

The NHL lost an entire season.  The fans came back.

The NBA lost half of a season.  The fans came back.

I think that owners (and players) have good reason to expect that fans will continue to support them, even if there's a season-long lockout.  The most important thing to do is to ensure that the league is healthy long-term through these CBA negotiations.

[Chris]

Lastly, as an aside, I don't want a "generous" owner, at least when it comes to player salaries.  The NBA has a salary cap, and generosity with guaranteed contracts is a terrible idea.  Rather, we need smart, calculating owners (and management) who don't give players contracts they don't earn or deserve.

Yeah, when I think of "generous" owners, the first name that comes to my mind is Dan Snyder.  Any Redskins fans out there want the C's run that way?

I think Wyc is willing to invest whatever is needed to put a championship caliber team on the court.  Which is exactly why he is a hardline guy on the CBA, because he knows that to remain financially viable while still competing, he needs a system that doesn't make him choose between making a profit and putting a competitive team on the court.  

[Jon]

Not particularly.  And though I tend to believe Wyc that he is willing to give up the season, for all we know this is just public posturing by him, as he tries to push for a better deal.  

Let's wait until we miss some games before we start feeling anything (though as I said above, I do worry that there will be no season).  

If I'm upset about anything, it's that the C's may not get their shot at a last hoorah.  

[Chris]

A couple weeks ago, there was an article on this site, talking about how Wyc wouldn't mind sacrificing an entire NBA season (among other owners) to get his point across.

I can't get past this first sentence.  I can't see how anyone thinks this is about getting "his point across".  This is not some game, where they are just trying to teach each other a lesson.  This is business, and Wyc, along with all of the other owners, are incredibly successful businessmen. 

They all understand that in business you have to make important decisions, and sometimes, when your business is not doing great (and by all accounts, there are way too many teams barely breaking even or losing money), it is better to take a step back to fix the problem, than just play it out in a system that isn't conducive to consistently making money.

Now, I can understand why people don't like this, but this is by no means some whim of the owners to stick it to the players.  This is a calculated business decision, being made by some of the most successfuly businessmen in the world, in the hopes of improving their business in the longterm. 

And you said it yourself. The word "long term."

But here's the issue with the "long term."

Fans don't always think long term. Let's say the entire season gets locked out. Or let's say the season starts late (January or February.)

By then, who is to say that fans will come back. They'll just jump on someone else's bandwagon.

How does it benefit me as a consumer to return to watching a product after that product has jaded me by shutting me out from watching games?

Sorry but the idea of possibly waiting until January or November 2012 to return to watching basketball just doesn't sit right.

Maybe a lockout helps the owners, but how does it benefit me as a fan?

But when half the teams in the NBA are losing money already, with the league at its most popular in years (maybe ever?), then which is worse, losing a few fans (I really don't think they are going to be leaving in droves), or continuing in a system that they believe is not financially acceptable?

Not to mention, there is a lot of uncertainty right now of whether revenues are going to continue to grow.  Technology is getting so good that a lot more people are choosing to sit at home and watch their HD TV rather than pay to come to the games.  And, if the bottom falls out, with the current operating expenses of most of these teams, suddenly teams that are either barely profitable or taking losses could be losing massive amounts of money, and the league could be in a VERY sticky situation.

Will they lose some fans by missing a season?  Sure.  Will a lot of those fans come back eventually?  History says yes.  

But, if they don't get a new system that works financially for the majority of teams, I think they could be looking at something much worse than losing a handful of fans for a few years.  

[pearljammer10]

I dont blame Wyc at all... I dont know every detail about that lockout and such but there are certainly points i agree with from both sides. The players are just as greedy as the owners are.

[Chris]

I dont blame Wyc at all... I dont know every detail about that lockout and such but there are certainly points i agree with from both sides. The players are just as greedy as the owners are.

The real problem I have right now is that I think both sides are digging in too much, and are completely uninterested in talking.

I understand that they are far apart, but the fact that no one is pushing to meet before August at the earliest is hard to swallow as a fan. 

[KGs Knee]

Do I feel betrayed?  No.  To feel betrayed, I would have to feel Wyc owes me something.  I just can't see how he owes me anything specific.

Do I like him less, in light of his stated position on the lock-out and what he would like a new CBA to look like?  Absolutely.  The owners are the ones taking the game away from us fans.

He is showing himself to be as greedy as just about every other owner.  Should I have expected any less?  Probably not.  The recent new deal he signed with CSNNE shows this.  The deal was basically structured to divert as much possible potential revenue from the deal to assets which will in all likelyhood be off limits to players.

End of the day, I just can't behind anything the owners are attempting to get, because they are simply trying to cheat the players out of their fair share of the money through their position of power.  Some will argue that anyones fair share is only what you can negotiate, but, that is only true if both sides are negotiating in good-faith.  The owners are not.  This is a lock-out, not a strike, so yes, I blame the owners.

[Tai]

Do I feel betrayed?  No.  To feel betrayed, I would have to feel Wyc owes me something.  I just can't see how he owes me anything specific.

Do I like him less, in light of his stated position on the lock-out and what he would like a new CBA to look like?  Absolutely.  The owners are the ones taking the game away from us fans.

He is showing himself to be as greedy as just about every other owner.  Should I have expected any less?  Probably not.  The recent new deal he signed with CSNNE shows this.  The deal was basically structured to divert as much possible potential revenue from the deal to assets which will in all likelyhood be off limits to players.

End of the day, I just can't behind anything the owners are attempting to get, because they are simply trying to cheat the players out of their fair share of the money through their position of power.  Some will argue that anyones fair share is only what you can negotiate, but, that is only true if both sides are negotiating in good-faith.  The owners are not.  This is a lock-out, not a strike, so yes, I blame the owners.

The bolded part is more or less the problem I've had with people who say they blame the players for this.

You think the players make too much? Fine. But newsflash; they're not the ones asking for MORE money. The owners are, or at least a system that gives them more money. And more or less, they want at least part of the additional money they're asking for to come out of the player's pockets along with said change of system that will prolly lower what the average player can make in the NBA.

So in effect, by people not taking the players' side on this, what they're really saying is that they don't support the players' right to keep the money they're already earning just cause of the old and worn out arguments of "well they already make more in one year than I might make my own life" or "I could retire off of what they make in a year".

I mean, if that's how they feel, then fine, but all the same, the players have a right to keep the money they have and not just bend over for the owners, especially when it can't be properly established whether the owners are actually losing money in the first place or not to warrant any change in the system. A union is a union, it doesn't matter how match the average person in it makes. Issues like these is why they exist, and the NBA players shouldn't be criticized for standing up for themselves.

To tie this back to Wyc, if he's really willing to lose a season, it better be because he knows it'll actually benefit the Celtics as far as being able to make sure they stay contenders.

[pearljammer10]

I dont blame Wyc at all... I dont know every detail about that lockout and such but there are certainly points i agree with from both sides. The players are just as greedy as the owners are.

The real problem I have right now is that I think both sides are digging in too much, and are completely uninterested in talking.

I understand that they are far apart, but the fact that no one is pushing to meet before August at the earliest is hard to swallow as a fan. 

Yeah I will certainly agree with you on this. To see them kinda just putting it on the backburner and not really giving two [craps] is pretty tough to watch play out.